RLX Technology (RLX) Risk Analysis

We adopted equity incentive plans and we granted share-based compensation awards under such plans to our employees, directors and consultants to incentivize their performance and align their interests with ours. We have adopted our 2021 Plan and assume all outstanding share incentive awards granted under the equity incentive plans of Relx Inc. For further detailed information, please refer to "Item 6. Directors, Senior Management and Employees-Compensation-Share Incentive Plans." We recorded share-based compensation expenses of RMB223.3 million, RMB166.2 million and RMB362.9 million (US$51.1 million) for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2022 and 2023, respectively. We believe the granting of share-based compensation is of significant importance to our ability to attract and retain key personnel and employees, and we will continue to grant share-based compensation to employees in the future. As a result, our expenses associated with share-based compensation may increase in the future, which may have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

As a Cayman Islands company listed on the NYSE, we are subject to the NYSE listing standards, which require listed companies to have, among other things, a majority of their board members to be independent and independent director oversight of executive compensation and nomination of directors. However, NYSE rules permit a foreign private issuer like us to follow the corporate governance practices of its home country. Certain corporate governance practices in the Cayman Islands, which is our home country, may differ significantly from the NYSE listing standards. For example, we currently follow our home country practice in lieu of the requirements of NYSE Listed Company Manual Section 303A.01 to have a majority of independent directors and the requirement of NYSE Listed Company Manual Section 303A.07 to have an audit committee with at least three members. We are permitted to elect to rely on additional home country practice to be exempted from the corporate governance requirements. If we choose to follow home country practice in the future, our shareholders may be afforded less protection than they would otherwise enjoy if we complied fully with the NYSE listing standards.

The deposit agreement governing the ADSs representing our Class A ordinary shares provides that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (or, if the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a particular dispute, in the state courts in New York County, New York) should have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine claims arising out of or relating in any way to the deposit agreement (including claims arising under the Exchange Act or the Securities Act) and in that regard, to the fullest extent permitted by law, ADS holders waive the right to a jury trial of any claim they may have against us or the depositary arising out of or relating to our shares, the ADSs or the deposit agreement, including any claim under the U.S. federal securities laws, to the fullest extent permitted by law. If we or the depositary opposed a jury trial demand based on the waiver, the court would determine whether the waiver was enforceable based on the facts and circumstances of that case in accordance with the applicable state and federal law. To our knowledge, the enforceability of a contractual pre-dispute jury trial waiver in connection with claims arising under the federal securities laws has not been finally adjudicated by the United States Supreme Court. However, we believe that a contractual pre-dispute jury trial waiver provision is generally enforceable, including under the laws of the State of New York, which govern the deposit agreement. In determining whether to enforce a contractual pre-dispute jury trial waiver provision, courts will generally consider whether a party knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waives the right to a jury trial. We believe that this is the case with respect to the deposit agreement and the ADSs. It is advisable that you consult legal counsel regarding the jury waiver provision before entering into the deposit agreement. If you or any other holders or beneficial owners of ADSs bring a claim against us or the depositary in connection with matters arising under the deposit agreement or the ADSs, including claims under federal securities laws, you or such other holder or beneficial owner may not be entitled to a jury trial with respect to such claims, which may have the effect of limiting and discouraging lawsuits against us or the depositary, lead to increased costs to bring a claim, limited access to information and other imbalances of resources between such holder and us, or limit such holder's ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that such holder finds favorable. If a lawsuit is brought against us or the depositary under the deposit agreement, it may be heard only by a judge or justice of the applicable trial court, which would be conducted according to different civil procedures and may result in different outcomes than a trial by jury would have had, including results that could be less favorable to the plaintiff(s) in any such action. Nevertheless, if this jury trial waiver provision is not enforced, to the extent a court action proceeds, it would proceed under the terms of the deposit agreement with a jury trial. No condition, stipulation or provision of the deposit agreement or ADSs will relieve us or the depositary from our respective obligations to comply with the Securities Act and the Exchange Act nor serve as a waiver by any holder or beneficial owner of ADSs of compliance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

Under the deposit agreement for the ADSs, if you do not timely provide voting instructions to the depositary, the depositary will give us a discretionary proxy to vote our Class A ordinary shares underlying your ADSs at shareholders' meetings unless: - we have failed to timely provide the depositary with notice of the meeting and related voting materials;- we have instructed the depositary that we do not wish a discretionary proxy to be given;- we have informed the depositary that there is substantial opposition as to a matter to be voted on at the meeting;- we have informed the depositary that a matter to be voted on at the meeting may have an adverse impact on shareholders; or - the voting at the meeting is to be made on a show of hands. The effect of this discretionary proxy is that if you do not timely provide voting instructions to the depositary in the manner required by the deposit agreement, you cannot prevent our Class A ordinary shares underlying your ADSs from being voted, except under the circumstances described above. This may make it more difficult for shareholders to influence the management of our company. Holders of our Class A ordinary shares are not subject to this discretionary proxy.

As a holder of our ADSs, you will only be able to exercise the voting rights with respect to the underlying Class A ordinary shares in accordance with the provisions of the deposit agreement. Under the deposit agreement, you must vote by giving voting instructions to the depositary. Upon receipt of your voting instructions, the depositary will vote the underlying Class A ordinary shares in accordance with these instructions. You will not be able to directly exercise your right to vote with respect to the underlying shares unless you withdraw the Class A ordinary shares. When a general meeting is convened, you may not receive sufficient advance notice to withdraw the shares underlying your ADSs to allow you to vote with respect to any specific matter. If we ask for your instructions, the depositary will notify you of the upcoming vote and will arrange to deliver our voting materials to you. We cannot assure you that you will receive the voting materials in time to ensure that you can instruct the depositary to vote your shares. In addition, the depositary and its agents are not responsible for failing to carry out voting instructions or for their manner of carrying out your voting instructions. This means that you may not be able to exercise your right to vote and you may have no legal remedy if the shares underlying your ADSs are not voted as you requested. Furthermore, as a Cayman Islands exempted company, we are not obliged by the Companies Act (As Revised) of the Cayman Islands to call shareholders' annual general meetings.

We are an exempted Cayman Islands company and substantially all of our assets are located outside of the United States. Substantially all of our current operations are conducted in China. In addition, most of our current directors and officers are nationals and residents of countries other than the United States. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for you to bring an action against us or against these individuals in the United States in the event that you believe that your rights have been infringed under the U.S. federal securities laws or otherwise. Even if you are successful in bringing an action of this kind, such judgements against our assets or the assets of our directors and officers are subject to further recognition and enforcement proceedings under the laws of the Cayman Islands and China.

We are an exempted company incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands. Our corporate affairs are governed by our amended and restated memorandum and articles of association, the Companies Act (As Revised) of the Cayman Islands and the common law of the Cayman Islands. The rights of shareholders to take action against our directors, actions by our minority shareholders and the fiduciary duties of our directors to us under Cayman Islands law are to a large extent governed by the common law of the Cayman Islands. The common law of the Cayman Islands is derived in part from comparatively limited judicial precedent in the Cayman Islands as well as from the common law of England, the decisions of whose courts are of persuasive authority, but are not binding, on a court in the Cayman Islands. The rights of our shareholders and the fiduciary duties of our directors under Cayman Islands law are not as clearly established as they would be under statutes or judicial precedents in some jurisdictions in the United States. In particular, the Cayman Islands has a less developed body of securities laws than the United States. Some U.S. states, such as Delaware, have more fully developed and judicially interpreted bodies of corporate law than the Cayman Islands. In addition, Cayman Islands companies may not have the standing to initiate a shareholder derivative action in a federal court of the United States. Shareholders of Cayman Islands exempted companies like us have no general rights under Cayman Islands law to inspect corporate records (other than the memorandum and articles of association, special resolutions, and the register of mortgages and charges) or to obtain copies of lists of shareholders of these companies. Our directors have discretion under our currently effective memorandum and articles of association to determine whether or not, and under what conditions, our corporate records may be inspected by our shareholders, but are not obliged to make them available to our shareholders. This may make it more difficult for you to obtain the information needed to establish any facts necessary for a shareholder motion or to solicit proxies from other shareholders in connection with a proxy contest. As a result of all of the above, our public shareholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions taken by management, members of our board of directors or controlling shareholders than they would as public shareholders of a company incorporated in the United States.

Our currently effective memorandum and articles of association provide that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (or, if the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a particular dispute, the state courts in New York County, New York) is the exclusive forum within the United States for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising out of or relating in any way to the federal securities laws of the United States, regardless of whether such legal suit, action, or proceeding also involves parties other than our company. The deposit agreement provides that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (or, if the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a particular dispute, the state courts in New York County, New York) should have exclusive jurisdiction over any suit, action or proceeding against or involving us or the depositary, arising out of or relating in any way to the deposit agreement or the transactions contemplated thereby or by virtue of owning the ADSs. The enforceability of similar federal court choice of forum provisions in other companies' organizational documents has been challenged in legal proceedings in the United States, and it is possible that a court could find this type of provision to be inapplicable or unenforceable. If a court were to find the federal choice of forum provision contained in our currently effective memorandum and articles of association or the deposit agreement to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions. If upheld, the forum selection clause in our currently effective memorandum and articles of association, as well as the forum selection provision in the deposit agreement, may limit a security-holder's ability to bring a claim against us, our directors and officers, the depositary, and potentially others in his or her preferred judicial forum, and this limitation may discourage such lawsuits. Holders of our shares or the ADSs will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the federal securities laws and the regulations promulgated thereunder pursuant to the exclusive forum provision in the currently effective memorandum and articles of association and deposit agreement.

Our currently effective memorandum and articles of association contain provisions to limit the ability of others to acquire control of our company or cause us to engage in change-of-control transactions. These provisions could have the effect of depriving our shareholders of an opportunity to sell their shares at a premium over prevailing market prices by discouraging third parties from seeking to obtain control of our company in a tender offer or similar transaction. Our board of directors has the authority, without further action by our shareholders, to issue preferred shares in one or more series and to fix their designations, powers, preferences, privileges and relative participating, optional or special rights and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions, including dividend rights, conversion rights, voting rights, terms of redemption and liquidation preferences, any or all of which may be greater than the rights associated with our ordinary shares, including Class A ordinary shares represented by ADSs. Preferred shares could be issued quickly with terms calculated to delay or prevent a change in control of our company or make removal of management more difficult. If our board of directors decides to issue preferred shares, the price of the ADSs may fall and the voting and other rights of the holders of our Class A ordinary shares and the ADSs may be materially and adversely affected.

We are a "controlled company" as defined under the NYSE Listed Company Manual. As of March 31, 2024, Ms. Ying (Kate) Wang beneficially owns 71,840,780 Class A ordinary shares of the company through BJ BJ Limited, 308,714,990 Class B ordinary shares of the company through Leo Valley Holding Limited, and is entitled to the voting rights of 434,351,790 Class A ordinary shares of the company pursuant the Acting-In-Concert Undertakings, representing 51.9% of the company's total issued and outstanding ordinary shares and 82.6% of the aggregate voting power of the company. For so long as we remain a controlled company under that definition, we are permitted to elect to rely, and will rely, on certain exemptions from corporate governance rules, including an exemption from the rule that a majority of our board of directors must be independent directors. Currently, we rely on the exemption with respect to the requirement that a majority of the board of directors consist of independent directors. As a result, you will not have the same protection afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to these corporate governance requirements.

We cannot predict whether our dual-class share structure with different voting rights will result in a lower or more volatile market price of the ADSs, adverse publicity, or other adverse consequences. Certain index providers have announced restrictions on including companies with multi-class share structures in certain of their indices. For example, S&P Dow Jones and FTSE Russell have changed their eligibility criteria for inclusion of shares of public companies on certain indices, including the S&P 500, to exclude companies with multiple classes of shares and companies whose public shareholders hold no more than 5% of total voting power from being added to such indices. As a result, our dual-class voting structure may prevent the inclusion of the ADSs representing our Class A ordinary shares in such indices, which could adversely affect the trading price and liquidity of the ADSs representing our Class A ordinary shares. In addition, several shareholder advisory firms have announced their opposition to the use of multiple class structure and our dual-class structure may cause shareholder advisory firms to publish negative commentary about our corporate governance, in which case the market price and liquidity of the ADSs could be adversely affected.

We have adopted a dual-class share structure such that our ordinary shares consist of Class A ordinary shares and Class B ordinary shares. In respect of matters requiring the votes of shareholders, holders of Class A ordinary shares are entitled to one vote per share, while holders of Class B ordinary shares are entitled to ten votes per share based on our dual-class share structure. Each Class B ordinary share is convertible into one Class A ordinary share at any time by the holder thereof, while Class A ordinary shares are not convertible into Class B ordinary shares under any circumstances. Any number of Class B ordinary shares held by a holder thereof will be automatically and immediately converted into an equal number of Class A ordinary shares upon the occurrence of (i) any direct or indirect sale, transfer, assignment or disposition of such number of Class B ordinary shares by the holder thereof or the direct or indirect transfer or assignment of the voting power attached to such number of Class B ordinary shares through voting proxy or otherwise to any person that is not Ms. Ying (Kate) Wang or an entity controlled by her, or (ii) the direct or indirect sale, transfer, assignment or disposition of a majority of the issued and outstanding voting securities of, or the direct or indirect transfer or assignment of the voting power attached to such voting securities through voting proxy or otherwise, or the direct or indirect sale, transfer, assignment or disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of, a holder of Class B ordinary shares that is an entity to any person that is not Ms. Ying (Kate) Wang or an entity controlled by her. As of March 31, 2024, Ms. Ying (Kate) Wang beneficially owns 71,840,780 Class A ordinary shares of the company through BJ BJ Limited, 308,714,990 Class B ordinary shares of the company through Leo Valley Holding Limited, and is entitled to the voting rights of 434,351,790 Class A ordinary shares of the company pursuant the Acting-In-Concert Undertakings, representing 51.9% of the company's total issued and outstanding ordinary shares and 82.6% of the aggregate voting power of the company. As a result of the dual-class share structure and the concentration of ownership, holders of our Class B ordinary shares have considerable influence over matters such as decisions regarding mergers, consolidations and the sale of all or substantially all of our assets, election of directors and other significant corporate actions. They may take actions that are not in the best interest of us or our other shareholders. This concentration of ownership may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company, which could have the effect of depriving our other shareholders of the opportunity to receive a premium for their shares as part of a sale of our company and may reduce the price of our ADSs. This concentrated control limits your ability to influence corporate matters and could discourage others from pursuing any potential merger, takeover or other change-of-control transactions that holders of Class A ordinary shares and ADSs may view as beneficial.

The trading price of the ADSs is likely to be volatile and could fluctuate widely due to factors beyond our control. This may happen because of broad market and industry factors, including the performance and fluctuation of the market prices of other companies with business operations located mainly in China that have listed their securities in the United States. In addition to market and industry factors, the price and trading volume for the ADSs may be highly volatile for factors specific to our own operations, including the following: - actual or anticipated fluctuations in our quarterly results of operations;- variations in our revenues, earnings, or cash flows;- fluctuations in operating metrics;- regulatory developments affecting us or our industry;- detrimental negative publicity about us, our competitors or our industry;- announcements of new products and services and expansions by us or our competitors;- announcements of new investments, acquisitions, strategic partnerships or joint ventures by us or our competitors;- changes in financial estimates by securities analysts;- additions or departures of key personnel;- release of lockup or other transfer restrictions on our outstanding equity securities or sales of additional equity securities; and - potential litigation or regulatory investigations. Any of these factors may result in large and sudden changes in the volume and price at which the ADSs will trade. The securities of some China-based companies that have listed their securities in the United States have experienced significant volatility since their initial public offerings in recent years, including, in some cases, substantial declines in the trading prices of their securities. The trading performances of these companies' securities after their offerings may affect the attitudes of investors towards Chinese companies listed in the United States in general, which consequently may impact the trading performance of our ADSs, regardless of our actual operating performance. In addition, any negative news or perceptions about inadequate corporate governance practices or fraudulent accounting, corporate structure or other matters of other Chinese companies may also negatively affect the attitudes of investors towards Chinese companies in general, including us, regardless of whether we have engaged in any inappropriate activities. In particular, the global financial crisis, the ensuing economic recessions and deterioration in the credit market in many countries have contributed and may continue to contribute to extreme volatility in the global stock markets. These broad market and industry fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our ADSs. Volatility or a lack of positive performance in our ADS price may also adversely affect our ability to retain key employees, most of whom have been granted options or other equity incentives. In the past, shareholders of public companies have often brought securities class action suits against companies following periods of instability in the market price of their securities. We and certain of our current officers and directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities class action captioned Garnett v. RLX Technology Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:21-cv-05125) filed on June 9, 2021 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On November 8, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed the amended, operative complaint in this case alleging, in sum and substance, that our IPO registration and prospectus ("Offering Documents") were false or misleading, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, in that the Offering Documents allegedly failed adequately to warn investors, among other things, that e-vapor products would soon be subject to the same stringent regulations as tobacco products. Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of a class of similarly situated investors and seek monetary damages on behalf of the class. In response, we and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss in December 2021. In February 2022, the lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiff counsel filed an opposition brief against our and other defendants' motion to dismiss. In March 2022, we and other defendants further filed a reply brief in further support of our motion to dismiss, and briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed. On September 30, 2022, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss all claims. The court held that Plaintiffs failed to plead that the company misrepresented its financials or the prospect of more stringent regulation of e-cigarettes in China. On October 28, 2022, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to appeal the dismissal of the complaint and filed their appellants' brief on February 10, 2023, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In November 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. Though we have planned to defend vigorously in the class action, we cannot ascertain the final result of the pending class action. Our involvement in the class action, whatever the final result may be, could divert a significant amount of our management's attention and other resources from the business and operations of us and the consolidated VIE, which could harm our results of operations and require us to incur significant expenses to defend the suit. Any such class action suit, whether or not successful, could harm our reputation and restrict our ability to raise capital in the future. We are currently unable to estimate the potential loss, if any, associated with the resolution of the lawsuit. If a claim is successfully made against us, we may be required to pay significant damages or settlement, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The trading market for the ADSs will be influenced by research or reports that industry or securities analysts publish about the business of us and the consolidated VIE. If one or more analysts who cover us downgrade the ADSs, the market price for the ADSs would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease to cover us or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which, in turn, could cause the market price or trading volume for the ADSs to decline.

Our auditor, the independent registered public accounting firm that issues the audit report included elsewhere in this annual report, as an auditor of companies that are traded publicly in the United States and a firm registered with the PCAOB, is subject to laws in the United States pursuant to which the PCAOB conducts regular inspections to assess its compliance with the applicable professional standards. The auditor is located in mainland China, a jurisdiction where the PCAOB was historically unable to conduct inspections and investigations completely before 2022. As a result, we and investors in the ADSs were deprived of the benefits of such PCAOB inspections. The inability of the PCAOB to conduct inspections of auditors in mainland China and Hong Kong in the past has made it more difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of our independent registered public accounting firm's audit procedures or quality control procedures as compared to auditors outside of mainland China and Hong Kong that are subject to the PCAOB inspections. On December 15, 2022, the PCAOB issued a report that vacated its December 16, 2021 determination and removed mainland China and Hong Kong from the list of jurisdictions where it is unable to inspect or investigate completely registered public accounting firms. However, if the PCAOB determines in the future that it no longer has full access to inspect and investigate completely accounting firms in mainland China and Hong Kong, and we use an accounting firm headquartered in one of these jurisdictions to issue an audit report on our financial statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, we and investors in our ADSs would be deprived of the benefits of such PCAOB inspections again, which could cause investors and potential investors in the ADSs to lose confidence in our audit procedures and reported financial information and the quality of our financial statements.

The shareholders of the consolidated VIE may have actual or potential conflicts of interest with us. These shareholders may breach, or cause the consolidated VIE to breach, or refuse to renew, the existing contractual arrangements we have with them and the consolidated VIE, which would have a material and adverse effect on our ability to effectively control the consolidated VIE and receive economic benefits from them. For example, the shareholders may be able to cause our agreements with the consolidated VIE to be performed in a manner adverse to us by, among other things, failing to remit payments due under the contractual arrangements to us on a timely basis. We cannot assure you that, when conflicts of interest arise, any or all of these shareholders will act in the best interests of our company or such conflicts will be resolved in our favor. Currently, we do not have any arrangements to address potential conflicts of interest between these shareholders and our company, except that we may invoke the right under the equity pledge agreements with the shareholders of the VIE to enforce the equity pledge in the case of the shareholders' breach of the contractual arrangements. For individuals who are also our directors and officers, we rely on them to abide by the laws of the Cayman Islands, which provide that directors and officers owe a fiduciary duty to the company that requires them to act in good faith and in what they believe to be the best interests of the company and not to use their position for personal gains. The shareholders of the consolidated VIE have executed powers of attorney to appoint our WFOE or a person designated by one of our WFOE to vote on their behalf and exercise voting rights as shareholders of the consolidated VIE. If we cannot resolve any conflict of interest or dispute between us and the shareholders of the consolidated VIE, we would have to rely on legal proceedings, which could result in disruption of the business of us and the consolidated VIE and subject us to substantial uncertainty as to the outcome of any such legal proceedings. The shareholders of the consolidated VIE may be involved in personal disputes with third parties or other incidents that may have an adverse effect on their respective equity interests in the consolidated VIE and the validity or enforceability of our contractual arrangements with the consolidated VIE and its shareholders. For example, in the event that any of the shareholders of the consolidated VIE divorces her or his spouse, the spouse may claim that the equity interest of the VIE held by such shareholder is part of their community property and should be divided between such shareholder and the spouse. If such claim is supported by the court, the relevant equity interest may be obtained by the shareholder's spouse or another third party who is not subject to obligations under our contractual arrangements, which could result in a loss of effective control over the VIE by us. Similarly, if any of the equity interests of the consolidated VIE is inherited by a third party with whom the current contractual arrangements are not binding, we could lose our control over the VIE or have to maintain such control by incurring unpredictable costs, which could cause significant disruption to part of the business and operations of us and the consolidated VIE and harm our financial condition and results of operations.

If the consolidated VIE or its shareholders fail to perform their respective obligations under the contractual arrangements, we may have to incur substantial costs and expend additional resources to enforce such arrangements. We may also have to rely on legal remedies under PRC law, including seeking specific performance or injunctive relief, and contractual remedies, which we cannot assure you will be sufficient or effective under PRC law. For example, if the shareholders of the consolidated VIE were to refuse to transfer their equity interests in the consolidated VIE to us or our designee when we exercise the purchase option pursuant to these contractual arrangements, or if they were otherwise to act in bad faith toward us, then we may have to take legal actions to compel them to perform their contractual obligations. All the agreements under our contractual arrangements are governed by PRC law and provide for the resolution of disputes through arbitration in China. Accordingly, these contracts would be interpreted in accordance with PRC law and any disputes would be resolved in accordance with PRC legal procedures. As a result, we cannot guarantee that we could successfully enforce these contractual arrangements in a timely manner, or at all. See "-Risks Relating to Doing Business in China-Failure to respond to changes in the regulatory environment in China could materially and adversely affect us." Meanwhile, there are very few precedents and little formal guidance as to how contractual arrangements in the context of a consolidated variable interest entity should be interpreted or enforced under PRC law. There remain significant uncertainties regarding the ultimate outcome of such arbitration if legal action becomes necessary. In addition, under PRC law, rulings by arbitrators are final, parties cannot appeal the arbitration results in courts, and if the losing parties fail to carry out the arbitration awards within a prescribed time limit, the prevailing parties may only enforce the arbitration awards in PRC courts through arbitration award recognition proceedings, which would require additional expenses and delay. In the event we are unable to enforce these contractual arrangements, or if we suffer significant delay or other obstacles in the process of enforcing these contractual arrangements, we may not be able to exert effective control over the consolidated VIE, and our ability to conduct the business we currently conduct through the contractual arrangements may be negatively affected.